The view that people should somehow be grateful because some central authority has granted them a right, understood as some vague legal entitlement, smacks of deep-seated moral and spiritual hypocrisy.
For instance, banksters would argue that we should be grateful for their debt-based practices because it enables some people to become proprietors having paid off the debt of, say, a mortgage, along with interest.
This is ridiculous on its face because the earth and its resources belong to us as a species by nature. The fact that the right to property is granted (after paying through the nose for it) shows that the land has been robbed from the people in the first place to be then handed back to individuals able and willing to pay for it through their labour and monetary resources.
Taking another example, State authorities think we should be grateful to have, say, the right to vote (between one set of wolves and another) and that not exercising that granted right is somehow un-citizenly.
The fact that rights are granted from centralised authority shows how far removed we are from the natural order of things because under cosmic law, a right is simply the opposite of a wrong.
Put differently you may do anything that does not violate the rights of others not to be thieved or harmed. The fact that rights are now seen as emanating from centralised authority should, to alert minds, cast suspicion on said authorities.
Indeed how does an authority, e.g. government, get the power to grant rights in the first place? Obviously from having previously stolen them from the people.
Addendum - Of course some philosophers have constructed justifications for State power based on supposed social contracts that in reality no one ever signed up to and that historically were one sided and violently enforced.
In addition it is impossible to alienate rights, such as the right to levy taxes, that one does not possess in natural law. As researcher Mark Passio aptly points out, to consider whether an action is right or wrong, view the world as having only two people on it and evaluate whether, say, one has the right to tax another.